Final paragraph from the article I originally linked to for this debate about the "gay uncle" hypothesis. (side note: readers should understand the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory" as used in a scientific context before commenting)
Please note that the scientist's take on the matter being discussed does not make absolutist statements. Scientists will almost always inject qualifications into their claims, unlike the True Believer who 'knows' the Truth.Potential Evolutionary Role for Same-Sex Attraction
Do these findings have any meaning outside of Samoa? Yes and no. Samoan culture is very different from most Western cultures. Samoan culture is very localized, and centered on tight-knit extended families, whereas Western societies tend to be highly individualistic and homophobic. Families are also much more geographically dispersed in Western cultures, diminishing the role that bachelor uncles can play in the extended family, even if they choose to. But in this sense, the researchers say, Samoa's communitarian culture may be more -- not less -- representative of the environment in which male same-sex sexuality evolved eons ago. In that sense, it's not the bachelor uncle who is poorly adapted to the world, but rather the modern Western world that has evolved into an unwelcoming place.
“And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
I agree, and thanks again for attempting to dismiss your way out of a failing argument.As for what this is and is not evidence for, it is a matter of perception. To borrow a little from your post modernism.
What? You want me to prove that the way you interpret evidence is different than the way I interpret evidence?I agree, and thanks again for attempting to dismiss your way out of a failing argument.
Last edited by CriticalThought; 05-06-12 at 09:18 AM.
You mean the way you choose to ignore that which doesn't fit your paradigm?What? You want me to prove that the way you interpret evidence is different than the way I interpret evidence?
And we wouldn't be human without an ability to adjust our paradigms based on new evidence. We have that ability, too, just sometimes not the will to realize it.We wouldn't have paradigms if we didn't ignore something. The human mind is built to categorize and discern.
Wow... All these days and all these posts later, and the left is still trying to justify their defense of hate speech.